|
|
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your post. I particularly want to respond to:
Amazing.... we usually manage to avoid polarizing political discussions here... hang on for the wild ride! Happy Mother's day!
I think one of the most distressing features of our society these is that even smart people cannot talk quietly about important political issues. So, first I want to apologize to the list for my post. I was in a position to ask questions, but I was NOT in a position to make assertions, and I shouldn't have done so.
Second, I hope that what follows won't be a "wild ride." This stuff is WAY too important to confuse discussion with blood sport. A list like this one is a wonderful resource for gathering opinion and fact ... a place where minds might actually .... gasp .... change! But only if people keep to what they know.
Fifteen minutes of plunging around in cyberspace leads me to suspect i was dead wrong about the recent source of most of the weaponry being used in Mexico. As to the obligations of employers under Arizona employment law, I am still looking. But, the fact remains, right or wrong, the opinions I presented were not well supported at the time I made them.
I believe in rational argument and my post was inconsistent with that belief.
I won't write further on this subject unless I turn up more information.
Specific apologies for making fun of Owen.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 5/9/2010 10:10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Arizona meets the Facebook community
Amazing.... we usually manage to avoid polarizing political discussions here... hang on for the wild ride! Happy Mother's day!
I've lived on the border of Mexico in Arizona and I am sympathetic with the people who live there who find themselves in a war zone. That doesn't mean I like the idea of encouraging what is too often a racist and nasty point of view on immigration. It is also often a double-standard (wanting exploitable, cheap labor while resenting the people who supply it). I have had personal experiences while living on the border which give me reason to resent (deeply) the viciousness and crime that goes with illegal drug traffic. I have had very little experience that suggests that the traffic of those seeking jobs (illegal jobs, created by people who clearly know they are hiring non-citizens) is more than an inconvenience to most of us, though it has gotten quite mixed up with the other illegal traffic. Illegal immigration is a "gateway behavior" to the serious problems in the same way that marijuana is a "gateway drug" to Heroin or PCP or Crystal Meth... there might be a strong correlation, but the causal relations are a little more vague.
It also doesn't mean I like increasing the powers of law enforcement (directly or indirectly), especially in the areas of demanding proof of identity. I resist showing my ID to restaurants who felt it was necessary to demand it of a 50+ year old with grey in his beard, just to drink a beer. Never mind, I'll have a coke. Whether they felt put upon by tighter enforcement or not, such things are just *silly* and end up supporting arbitrary and potentially inappropriate demands for "papers". I am generally supportive of the *spirit* of most if not all of the laws of this land, but often the *letter* and more to the point, overzealous abuse of the letter of a law in the pursuit of a spirit *not* intended by the law offends me mightily. I'm sorry for those of you who think it is reasonable to be afraid of not carrying ID with you everywhere... to be that intimidated by your own government is a shame, and to sentence a significant portion of our citizens (at least in the southwest) to such fear is unconscionable. At least I have the option (which I exercise) of ordering a coke instead of a beer when my ID is demanded arbitrarily. Should a person with a tan or dark hair or eyes, expect to be harassed or even detained for not being willing to show ID on-demand? Not in my country.
I'm the rare person who started my adult life fairly conservatively and found myself becoming more and more liberal as I experienced the realities of life. I'm not sure why it is presumed that this education usually goes the other way. Perhaps my youthful conservatism (libertarianism really) was rooted in naivete... others might suggest that I've just shifted my naivete as I got old and my brain and heart turned to mush. I would claim that what has changed is that the school of hard-knocks has allowed me to appreciate that people are who they are and do what they do for very specific and personal reasons, based on the experiences they have had and that the narrow stereotyped explanations for (judgements of) people's behaviour that *all* "isms" seem to be based in are just an excuse for being rude, selfish, xenophobic, bigots.
Tory's cartoon posting made a very important point, no matter where you fall on the question of the current immigration debate. This country, as it exists today, was founded on an extreme takeover from an indigenous population. It took a couple hundred years to complete, but it was pretty thorough. I feel lucky enough to have lived in proximity with various native tribes throughout my life (Apache, Navajo, Hopi, Zuni and now the northern Pueblos) and known natives from throughout the west and some have been my friends, a few have been my enemies. But it was always personal.
There is only a little I can do about the way this country came into being (and continues to be) in that regard, but it does seem that one thing I can do is let that experience inform my humility. In many ways, our southern border has become much like the old-time reservation boundaries. We treat our neighbors in Mexico a lot the way we treated the native populations of this country, expecting them to accept us as tourists, demanding that they stay "on the Rez", unless we give them day passes to come and do our dirty work.
We need to come to terms (along with the government and the citizenry of Mexico) with the huge gradients that draw the people of Mexico into this country. On the mild side... we have jobs that we apparently don't want to do ourselves, or not at the prices we want to pay for them. On the harsher side, we have a huge illegal drug appetite... Cocaine having been the big winner for a long time, fueling much of South America's discontent. I don't have pat answers, but I suspect legalizing Marijuana would go a long way to reducing some of this pressure. Also on the harsher side, we have an appetite for even darker things... like automatic weapons, sex slaves, and probably worse than I can even think of. These are *our* appetites, and as ugly and inconvenient as they are, we don't get to blame the people sneaking across the border looking for access to "the American Dream" for these appetites. Yet some of us do, or at least we pretend to, to support our racist, bigoted, xenophobic instincts.
Yes, I said instincts, I think humans (maybe all mammals) are instinctively xenophobic (which translates to racism and bigotry once you have a big enough brain to make such distinctions). I think it is natural that we fear "the other". That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand those fears and find a way to respond to them productively rather than loading up our arsenal of "deer rifles" and patrolling the southern border ourselves (with a cooler packed with Coors light).
I understand that those charged with enforcement are frustrated and want more empowerment and help from others in doing their job. But I'm not ready to see the principles my country espouses be ditched to do that. I could rant on about the despoiling that happened over the first 8 years of this new millenium and many of you would cheer me, a few would sneer and cite the BS that the former administration pulled and maybe take a few cheap shots at the current one... but politics aside, I think it is a shame that we so often feed our worst instincts when under pressure. I think we should seek to find the best and highest responses to our challenges rather than our worst and lowest ones.
Just my $.019 worth...
- Steve
Nick-
Please cite the facts that support your contention re the Arizona law empowering the police to ask for papers if you just happen to "look" Mexican and the source of the heavy weapons flowing to Mexico.
The idea that the types of military-grade weapons used comes from smuggling civilian weapons bought in border states is refuted by:
The 90% of weapons having a US origin figure quoted by the Obama administration is called into question by that notoriously right-wing organization, the Annenberg Public Policy Center:
Reading the text of the bill:
I see no statute that entitles a "show me your papers" demand unless it is in the course of investigation of a crime. The straw man argument that police in Arizona (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) will harass people because they don't like the way they look BECAUSE of this bill does not seem logical. No doubt harassment occurs now, for a variety of reasons, but it would seem to be isolated incidents caused by bad cops, just like everywhere else in the US (or Mexico, for that matter).
The Arizona bill provides for a fascinating study in emergence to anyone interested in complexity theory in the sociologic context. The current situation of increased crime, massive expenditure of Arizona capital and lack of federal responsibility in dealing with the situation has placed the situation at the "edge of chaos". The attractor wells are now insufficient to stabilize the situation, and something needs to change. It strikes me that introducing political ideology and straw-man arguments into the mix clouds the opportunity to learn something from the situation. David Snowden has eloquently shown, in his Cynefin Framework, what happens when an attempt is made to treat a complex domain as though it were simple, or even complicated: it drives the domain into chaos. The Arizona law can be viewed as a probe. The key is to now sense for the emergent order and respond.
Or we can just sit back and watch the situation devolve into chaos.....
I usually do carry my driver's license when I go to the mall, even when I ride my bike. I sort of like the idea of someone knowing who I am if I'm hit by a bus. If I happen to buy an adult beverage, I have to "show my papers", and that isn't to a cop, or even because I am being investigated for breaking a law. I don't feel imposed upon. When I lived in Austria, I had to carry my Ausweis all the time, and show it upon occasion when I went to a hotel, cashed a check and once, to "the man", when I attempted to ride the streetcar without paying and was caught.
Russ #3
Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ
On May 9, 2010, at 1:04 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Hey, guys. Isnt there already a law in Arizona that requires employers to check the papers of anybody they hire and gives them a website to do it? I understand that that law is not enforced, because, obviously, it would interfere with employers exploitation of illegal aliens. If it were enforced, much of Arizona's problem would be solved without the application of racial profiling, wouldn't it?
Owen, would you really be happy to have your papers demanded every time you went to the Plaza because you happen to wear a pony tail? I really find it hard to imagine any FRIAM member being happy to have to carry and show papers every time she or he goes to the mall. You Defenders of Net Freedom, you!
Also, a lot of illegal traffic coming from mexico would be curtailed if we would stop the flow of heavy weaponry from the US TO Mexico.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 5/8/2010 9:24:17 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Arizona meets the Facebook community
Nicely said.
It does seem to me that the nation itself is waiting for the immigration reform that should naturally be coming from the grid-locked congress/senate. I hope Arizona forces us to act in unity.
Its fine to revert to "don't ask, don't tell" but it's dishonest.
Clearly the endgame will have to be amnesty plus a work visa plus a means towards citizenship if desired.
Unfortunately, the republicans have found a negative game strategy that guarantees at worst a stalemate, and at best, a win in the next election.
On May 8, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's not Arizona. Arizona was simply the first state to have the guts to act. More than 50% of Americans apparently approve the Arizona law. We should boycott the entire country--except perhaps enclaves like Sante Fe (?) and Los Angeles (where I live). Do you know what the statistics are with respect to how people in Sante Fe feel about the new law?
Those statistics were before major league baseball started organizing to move the all-star game out of Arizona.
Arizona was also the only state that had the guts to dis Martin Luther King Jr's birthday as a holiday. Until the NFL moved the Super Bowl to Pasadena from Phoenix.
I also believe it's been demonstrated that you can get "more than 50% of Americans to apparently approve" anything if you phrase the question right.
-- rec --
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
|
Locked
